Abortion

[xBiophagex]

What you are describing is what I call convenient morality. It allows you to impose upon others standards you do not wish imposed upon yourself. If the right to life is paramount, then the reason for death is irrelevant. If you deny me the use of your body and, as a result, I die, then I have been denied the right to life. Anything else is only justification to ignore the inconveniences of your moral position.
[/QUOTE]

As I said, you are not legally required to save someone's life. Your right to life cannot constitutionally be infringed upon, i.e you cannot be killed. The only situations where someone can legally be killed is if they're threatening the life of someone else, or if they've been specifically charged and convicted with a crime.

 

[AmyNation]

noun plural child
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl.

 

[xBiophagex]

noun plural child
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl.

Rights are guaranteed to human beings. Being a child is not a prerequisite to being a person.

 

[SSDD]

A fertalizied egg, is not a man. Nor is it a child.

It is not sentient being.

There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Once fertilization is complete, a zygote exists, an egg no longer exists. And the abortion issue isn't about fertilized eggs anyway. No zygote has ever been aborted deliberately...

As I said, all arguments other than the one in which you state that you believe that one human being's right to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human being's right to live are one form of sophistry or another.

Semantics, which seems to be your form of argument is the weakest of all and one that you can never win. Sentience is not a requirement for being a human being. There are those who are severely retarded that are not sentient beings but they have the right to live none the less and can't be put to death for matters of convience. Even the severely brain injured are not summarily put to death if there is any hope that their condition will change and consciousness will return. Except for severely deformed unborns, the expectation of consciousness is a given.

 

[SSDD]

What you are describing is what I call convenient morality. It allows you to impose upon others standards you do not wish imposed upon yourself. If the right to life is paramount, then the reason for death is irrelevant. If you deny me the use of your body and, as a result, I die, then I have been denied the right to life. Anything else is only justification to ignore the inconveniences of your moral position.

Since there is no natural means by which you might find yourself dependent upon my body for your survival, your argument is moot, but there are situations where you might find your life just as dependent on me.

Suppose you find yourself, through no fault of your own, you wake to find yourself in the hold of my ship at sea or my plane in the air. You have no right to be on my property but I can not simply eject you as doing so would result in your death which would make me a murderer. I must let you finish the ride and then can turn you over to the authorities should I so choose.

In fact, I can't even eject a trespasser from my property if doing so will knowlingly result in his death. Into sub zero temperatures for instance.

As I said, you are not legally required to save someone's life.

Maybe I can't be held legally responsible because I don't posess any particular lifesaving skills. If I do however, and let someone die whom I have specific skills that could have saved them, I will find myself in a different boat altogether. IN fact, a doctor will find himself legally liable for either intentionally taking life or declining to assist and therefore allow death to occur.

Of course attempting to equate end of life decisions even those such as accidents to the natural development of a human being are specious and little better than the semantics that some abortion proponents attempt to play.

Further, in many states, you are required to stop and render aid and good samaritan laws protect those who posess lifesaving skills but are unable to save the life in question.

Your right to life cannot constitutionally be infringed upon, i.e you cannot be killed. The only situations where someone can legally be killed is if they're threatening the life of someone else, or if they've been specifically charged and convicted with a crime.

Which is precisly why abortion is unconstitutional. One human being's right to not be inconveninced does not outweigh another human being's right to live. You are right that a woman has a legal right to terminate a pregnancy if her own life is in imminent danger, but that would fall under the realm of self defense. Convenience is not a rational reason to kill another human being.

 

[SSDD]

noun plural child
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl.

You will always loose at semantics games. They are the most meager means to argue a point.

Deliberately choosing one definition of a word may be fine for writing your term paper, but in legal matters, every definition must be taken into consideration...not merely the most common usage in the language in which the dictionary is found. The term "with child" is literally thousands of years old and we both know what it means.

child:
noun, plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl
2. a son or daughter
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.
5. a childish person

In legal matters if a dispute between parties arises, the lawyers are called to the bench or the judges chambers and a legal dictionary is brought to bear. In higher courts, that dictionary is Blacks. If you open blacks to the word person, you will find the word defined as a human being.

That is why the court argued so stringently that unborns were something other than human beings. Had they acknowledged what has been well known for a very long time, there is no way that they could have rendered the decision they did. Justice Blackmund said as much when he stated that Roe would collapse if the precedent of personhood were ever established as from that point on, unborns would be protected under the fourteenth amendment.

That precedent of personhood is well established in case law now as many people are in prision having been charged for murder in the deaths of unborns. According to law, you can only be convicted of murder if you kill a person.

 

[PratchettFan]

person[ pur-suh n ]
noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child.

A fetus is not a man, a woman, or a child.

A human fetus falls within the accepted defintion of child. It is pointless to attempt to defend abortion in that manner. If you believe abortion should be legal, the only rational, and honest argument you can make is that you believe one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human being's right to life.

Not quite. It is the right to determine how one's body is going to be used. It isn't just inconvenience, it is very basis of personal freedom. If someone is not free in their person, then they are not free. Would you be willing to give up your right to control of your body in favor of my right to life?

 

[PratchettFan]

What you are describing is what I call convenient morality. It allows you to impose upon others standards you do not wish imposed upon yourself. If the right to life is paramount, then the reason for death is irrelevant. If you deny me the use of your body and, as a result, I die, then I have been denied the right to life. Anything else is only justification to ignore the inconveniences of your moral position.

As I said, you are not legally required to save someone's life. Your right to life cannot constitutionally be infringed upon, i.e you cannot be killed. The only situations where someone can legally be killed is if they're threatening the life of someone else, or if they've been specifically charged and convicted with a crime.[/QUOTE]

You can legally have an abortion, yet you persist in calling it murder. I think you are arguing that it should not be legal, so we are discussing moral positions and not legal ones. If we are discussing legality, then that has already been decided and the issue is closed.

You have stated the right to life supercedes the right to control of one's body. If that is the case, then my right to life supercedes your right to control your body. It is as simple as that. You belong to my need. So, though - like abortion - it is legal to let me die, your moral position should change that. You should be obligated to save me. You should have no choice in the matter. That is the logical consequence of your moral position. If that is unacceptable to you, then you should rethink your position.

My position is that no human being has the right to the body of another human being against their will. Therefore, even though it results in the death of innocent human beings (and I fully acknowledge them as human beings) I consider the question of abortion to be entirely in the hands of the woman involved and no one else has any say in the matter. She has absolute authority over how her body is to be used and needs explain her reasons to no one.

 

[PratchettFan]

What you are describing is what I call convenient morality. It allows you to impose upon others standards you do not wish imposed upon yourself. If the right to life is paramount, then the reason for death is irrelevant. If you deny me the use of your body and, as a result, I die, then I have been denied the right to life. Anything else is only justification to ignore the inconveniences of your moral position.

Since there is no natural means by which you might find yourself dependent upon my body for your survival, your argument is moot, but there are situations where you might find your life just as dependent on me.

Suppose you find yourself, through no fault of your own, you wake to find yourself in the hold of my ship at sea or my plane in the air. You have no right to be on my property but I can not simply eject you as doing so would result in your death which would make me a murderer. I must let you finish the ride and then can turn you over to the authorities should I so choose.

In fact, I can't even eject a trespasser from my property if doing so will knowlingly result in his death. Into sub zero temperatures for instance.

"Natural means"? I believe it was you who said that semantics are the weakest form of argument. What difference does "natural" make? Is someone who dies of natural causes somehow more dead than someone who dies of of unnatural ones? If I die due to lack of modern medical care, is that a natural death or an unnatural one? That is just semantics and it makes no difference at all.

If we have the right to life, then we have the right to life. You can't just say that only fetuses have the right to life but not adults.

In terms of inconvenience, I would suggest that donating blood is far less inconvenient than pregnancy, and far less dangerous. Yet I have not seen a single "pro-life" advocate suggest making blood donation obligatory - even though it saves lives. That would be seen as an assault on personal freedoms by the very people who would deny such freedom to pregnant women, in support of a right they would deny to anyone not a fetus.

The reality is that these moral standards are being applied very specifically. The right to life is only being applied to fetuses and this issue of "inconvenience" only to pregnant women. It seems not to extend to the rest of us. That is the essence of moral convenience and it is pure hypocrisy.

 

[SSDD]

Not quite. It is the right to determine how one's body is going to be used. It isn't just inconvenience, it is very basis of personal freedom. If someone is not free in their person, then they are not free. Would you be willing to give up your right to control of your body in favor of my right to life?

The simple fact of the matter, proven over and over in case law is that your right to do anything ends at the point where it interferes with the greater right that may be claimed by someone else.....see the hierarchy of rights.

Life liberty property.

Of what use is a right to property if your right to liberty is not first protected?

Of what use is a right to liberty if your right to life is not first prottected?

If someone may claim a greater right than the one you claim in any dispute, the right that sits higher on the hierarchy of rights takes precedence.

 

[SSDD]

"Natural means"? I believe it was you who said that semantics are the weakest form of argument. What difference does "natural" make? Is someone who dies of natural causes somehow more dead than someone who dies of of unnatural ones? If I die due to lack of modern medical care, is that a natural death or an unnatural one? That is just semantics and it makes no difference at all.

Then describe a situation where you would find yourself, through no actions of your own connected to, and dependent upon my bodily systems for your survival.

You have a right to live....you do not have a right to have extraordinary measures taken on your behalf to preserve your life. Gestation is not an extraordinary measure.

Why not simply make the only honest argument to be made in favor of abortion? You believe that one human being's right to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human being's right to live and you believe that one human being should be allowed to kill another with no legal accountablity for reason that amount to no more than convenience. I understand that it may be unpalatable to speak, but at its basis, that is your position if you favor abortion on demand.

 

[PratchettFan]

Not quite. It is the right to determine how one's body is going to be used. It isn't just inconvenience, it is very basis of personal freedom. If someone is not free in their person, then they are not free. Would you be willing to give up your right to control of your body in favor of my right to life?

The simple fact of the matter, proven over and over in case law is that your right to do anything ends at the point where it interferes with the greater right that may be claimed by someone else.....see the hierarchy of rights.

Life liberty property.

Of what use is a right to property if your right to liberty is not first protected?

Of what use is a right to liberty if your right to life is not first prottected?

If someone may claim a greater right than the one you claim in any dispute, the right that sits higher on the hierarchy of rights takes precedence.

If you wish to treat this as a matter of law, then let's keep it to law. This hierarchy you are referring to is not law. It is philosophy. In law, abortion is legal. Therefore, the matter has been resolved.

Now if you wish to deal with this as a matter of philosophy, then we are back to my point. There is no freedom unless you are free in your person.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is a hierarchy of rights, and the right to life trumps every other right. Feel free to point out any other circumstance where the right to life is taken away in protection of another right.

Clearly you are of the position that abortion should be illegal, so let me ask you this. Say hypothetically it does become illegal some day. What do you propose to do with a pregnant woman who is caught seeking out an abortion?

The abortion laws of your state from before Roe v. Wade are probably still technically on the books. Why don't you go look them up, and I expect you'll have your answer?

 

[PratchettFan]

"Natural means"? I believe it was you who said that semantics are the weakest form of argument. What difference does "natural" make? Is someone who dies of natural causes somehow more dead than someone who dies of of unnatural ones? If I die due to lack of modern medical care, is that a natural death or an unnatural one? That is just semantics and it makes no difference at all.

Then describe a situation where you would find yourself, through no actions of your own connected to, and dependent upon my bodily systems for your survival.

You have a right to live....you do not have a right to have extraordinary measures taken on your behalf to preserve your life. Gestation is not an extraordinary measure.

Why not simply make the only honest argument to be made in favor of abortion? You believe that one human being's right to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human being's right to live and you believe that one human being should be allowed to kill another with no legal accountablity for reason that amount to no more than convenience. I understand that it may be unpalatable to speak, but at its basis, that is your position if you favor abortion on demand.

No problem. I am injured in a accident and require a rare blood type. You are the only potential donor in the area. If you do not provide me with your blood, I die. Should I be able to force you to provide the blood?

You keep saying "inconvenience". I assume you have never been pregnant or lived with a woman who was. My wife gave birth twice and has undergone two surgeries since then to repair the damage to her system and still has medical issues related to those births. My youngest is now in his thirties, so those conditions were life changing and life long. This is not an "inconvenience" regardless how you wish to diminish it in an effort to bolster your position. Donating blood is just a pin prick and perhaps feeling a little tired for a day, but I'll wager you see that as unacceptable.

My position is simple. No human being has the right to the body of another human being. It doesn't matter whether the reason one person declines to subject themselves to the need of another, it is their body to do with as they please. Whether it is a matter of convenience, religious belief, medical necessity or plain meanness is irrelevant. Your body belongs to you, not to me. Only you can say how it will be used.

Your comment about gestation not be extraordinary is merely justification for moral convenience. It's an excuse to apply standards to others you would not apply to yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No argument. A fetus is a human being. Any argument to the contrary has no basis in science and is purely subjective.

That being said, is it your position that one human being has the right to use the body of another human against that human being's will?

Is it YOUR position that 1) biology gives a fat, furry DAMN about "rights", and 2) laws should somehow "correct" nature to suit human notions? You DO know that cosmic justice is just an ignorant invention of your own fevered mind, not a reality or reachable goal, right?

No. I think biology gives a woman the ability to terminate a pregnancy whenever she chooses. Rights are just our way of preventing other people from interfering with that ability.

I am assuming that by "our", you are referring only to yourself and likeminded people, rather than hubristically assuming that your viewpoints are the universal standard for morality for everyone.

Furthermore, I find it remarkable that you think laws exist to protect and enforce humanity's penchant to act like animals, rather than being a representation of humanity's desire to rise above that level. Tells me a great deal about why civilization is currently declining into chaos, anarchy, and violence.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So your position is that if I require a blood transfusion that you should have no choice in the matter as a donor. I should be able to force you to donate your blood to me. If you had a particularly rare blood type, you should have to register with the state and be picked up, as the need arose, to tap you because the right to life of the person in need supercedes your right to your body. You think we should get rid of organ donor cards and just automatically harvest organs from dead people regardless of the desires of the person or the family. Is that about it?

So your position is that all biological situations are exactly the same, and the purpose and goal of the law should be to make the universe "fair" according to human perceptions, despite the fact that even humans don't agree about what's "fair"? Is that about it?

Have you always had this problem with megalomania, or is it new?

Yes. That is my position. I assume your position is that laws should make sure you are protected but not those other people. You were saying about megalomania?

What part of "only a crazy and uneducated megalomaniac thinks he can control and change nature and biology through passage of laws" was hard for you to understand? I realize the words were kinda big, and had a lot of syllables, but I thought the concept was pretty straightforward.

On the other hand, you seem to think I have somehow advocated laws that protect only me and not other people, so obviously, reading comprehension is not among your life skills.

 

[Cecilie1200]

person[ pur-suh n ]
noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child.

A fetus is not a man, a woman, or a child.

A human fetus falls within the accepted defintion of child. It is pointless to attempt to defend abortion in that manner. If you believe abortion should be legal, the only rational, and honest argument you can make is that you believe one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human being's right to life.

Or that certain groups of people are less deserving of rights than others, and that a permanently designated underclass of "sub-people" should be created. Bit of a slippery slope, there, since we've already done that once and it didn't work out too well.

 

[Cecilie1200]

noun plural child
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl.

Rights are guaranteed to human beings. Being a child is not a prerequisite to being a person.

What dictionary is SHE using, the Guttmacher version?

This is how MY dictionary defines "child":

1 a : an unborn or recently born person
b dialect : a female infant

2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age

3 usually childe archaic : a youth of noble birth

4 a : a son or daughter of human parents
b : descendant

As we can see from both 1 and 4, its most general and non-contextually dependent definitions ABSOLUTELY include fetuses.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A fertalizied egg, is not a man. Nor is it a child.

It is not sentient being.

There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Once fertilization is complete, a zygote exists, an egg no longer exists. And the abortion issue isn't about fertilized eggs anyway. No zygote has ever been aborted deliberately...

As I said, all arguments other than the one in which you state that you believe that one human being's right to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human being's right to live are one form of sophistry or another.

Semantics, which seems to be your form of argument is the weakest of all and one that you can never win. Sentience is not a requirement for being a human being. There are those who are severely retarded that are not sentient beings but they have the right to live none the less and can't be put to death for matters of convience. Even the severely brain injured are not summarily put to death if there is any hope that their condition will change and consciousness will return. Except for severely deformed unborns, the expectation of consciousness is a given.

My dear, you DO realize that Amy and her . . . ilk advocate, openly or secretly, for the killing of ALL "undesirables" who don't meet this century's standard of perfection - which at least has the advantage of last century's in not being as specific in regards hair and eye color - and congratulate themselves on being quite the "compassionate humanitarians" for their willingness to treat human beings like lame horses or unwanted kittens.

 

[Cecilie1200]

person[ pur-suh n ]
noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child.

A fetus is not a man, a woman, or a child.

A human fetus falls within the accepted defintion of child. It is pointless to attempt to defend abortion in that manner. If you believe abortion should be legal, the only rational, and honest argument you can make is that you believe one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human being's right to life.

Not quite. It is the right to determine how one's body is going to be used. It isn't just inconvenience, it is very basis of personal freedom. If someone is not free in their person, then they are not free. Would you be willing to give up your right to control of your body in favor of my right to life?

My dear, in biology as in so many other things, one determines "how one's body is to be used" by one's actions. Engaging in reproductive actions - and no matter how disingenuous you sybarites wish to be on the subject, heterosexual intercourse IS still primarily a reproductive action - is not a choice to have your body NOT used for reproduction, any more than using your body to eat is a choice to have your body NOT used for elimination purposes (for the intellectually-challenged among us, that would be urinating and defecating).

And yes, I realize that the latter causality is much more inevitable than the former, but that is why your assertion that all biological functions are exactly the same is so laughably inane and childish, and made me snicker derisively at what an uneducated naif you are.

If one is not free in one's person, as a fetus manifestly is not under our current laws, then how can anyone be considered free in his or her person? A natural right that is not protected for everyone is not truly protected for anyone.